Info Lit and Library Anxiety

8/8/2019 Info Lit and Library Anxiety

1/22

Attaining information literacy: An investigation of the

relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill,

and library anxiety

Melissa Gross , Don Latham

College of Information, The Florida State University, 246 Louis Shores Building, Tallahassee,

Florida 32306-2100, USA

Available online 23 August 2007

Abstract

Competency theory predicts a miscalibration between students' self-assessments of their

information literacy skills and their actual skill level. This study investigates whether such a disparity

is evident among incoming freshmen who test as non-proficient on a standardized test of information

literacy. In addition, this study analyzes Information Literacy Test scores and library anxiety test scores

to provide preliminary data on whether library anxiety is related to information literacy skill

attainment. Findings reveal that the relationship between information literacy skills and self-

assessments predicted by competency theory are evident in the domain of information literacy. This

study did not find an association between information literacy skill scores and total library anxiety

scores. However, a significant negative correlation between information literacy scores and the

subscale knowledge of the library indicates that as information literacy scores rise, anxiety scores

related to a lack of knowledge of the library fall. The findings suggest that traditional information

literacy instruction may not be effective with non-proficient students, who are unlikely to see

themselves as needing or benefiting from such instruction.

2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 332 353

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Gross).

0740-8188/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.012
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.012http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.012mailto:[email protected]


2/22

1. Introduction

The acquisition of information literacy skills in society is a serious issue. Today, theconsequences for reaching adulthood with limited information literacy skills are becoming

increasingly severe. Individuals who are unprepared to participate in our information-rich

society are at an increasing disadvantage. This means that it is crucial to integrate information

literacy skills education into higher education effectively if we wish students to be full

participants in tomorrow's workforce. Students need to achieve a level of information literacy

that will allow them to find, assess, and use information in order to succeed in school, the

workplace, and their personal lives.

Information literacy has received increasing attention in research and professional practice

with the emergence of electronic resources. There is growing recognition that informationliteracy is necessary to participate in the information age. In the United States, there are two

main definitions of information literacy that guide the professional work of librarians. For K-

12 students, the definition is found in Information Power: Building Partnerships For Learning

(American Association for School Librarians [AASL] & Association for Educational

Communications and Technology [AECT], 1998). At the post-secondary level, Information

Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Association of College and Research

Libraries, 2000) informs information literacy practice. These publications provide standards

and indicators that facilitate the development of information literacy programs, as well as

assessment tools to measure the attainment of information literacy skills. Information Poweridentifies three broad areas within its Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning

information literacy, lifelong learning, and social responsibility. Within information literacy,

three core competencies are defined: the information literate student accesses information

effectively and efficiently, evaluates information critically and competently, and uses

information accurately and creatively (American Association for School Librarians and

Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1998). The Information

Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education takes its definition of information

literacy from the final report of the American Library Association's Presidential Committee on

Information Literacy. According to this report, information literacy is a set of abilities

requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate,evaluate, and use effectively the needed information (Association of College and Research

Libraries, 2000). The ACRL standards have been widely adopted by many colleges and

universities.

Another framework for examining students' information literacy is provided by the

outcomes assessment model. Accrediting agencies in particular are placing increasing

emphasis on outcomes assessment. Not surprisingly, most institutions of higher education

now incorporate such a framework into their overall institutional assessment plans ( Hernon

& Dugan, 2004). As Dugan (2004) explains, Outcomes assessment places shared

responsibility on all institutional units for providing evidence of how they contribute todesired educational outcomes and how they incorporate outcomes assessment into planning

and improvement (p. 103). Student learning outcomes can be assessed, and as such, they

provide a useful and important way to measure what students have learnedincluding what

333M. Gross, D. Latham / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 332353


3/22

they have learned from information literacy instruction. By working together, librarians,

faculty, and administrators can achieve the strategic triad of planning, implementing, and

improving information literacy instruction (Ratteray, 2004) and can select the rightassessment tool(s) for their institution's own particular needs (Hernon, 2004). Outcomes

assessment offers a valuable framework for measuring the effectiveness of instructional

efforts.

However, not all colleges and universities require that students receive information

literacy instruction. Even those who do often relegate instruction to no more than a one-hour

workshop. The fact remains that students who are unaware of a deficit in their information

literacy skills are unlikely to seek skill remediation on their own or to engage with instruction

when forced to take it. Competency theory provides a framework for understanding the

disconnection demonstrated in the information literacy literature between actual skill attain-ment and self-assessments of performance. Competency theory suggests that individuals with

low-level skills in a particular domain tend to overestimate their own skill level and,

moreover, have trouble recognizing proficiency in others (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

This project uses student scores on the Information Literacy Test (ILT) (James Madison

University [JMU], n.d.), responses on two short surveys, and student scores on the Library

Anxiety Scale (LAS) (Bostick, 1993) to provide a look at the relationship between a

standardized measurement of student information literacy skills and students' estimates of

their information seeking skills. It also examines the extent to which skill level may be

associated with library anxiety.

2. Problem statement

Much research and practice have focused on attaining information literacy competence

through instructional interventions and assessments. However, these efforts largely reflect the

point of view of the information literate: professional librarians and instructors. Generally

speaking, instructional efforts have not been informed by students' views of information

literacy and its attainment. Less is known about how students with non-proficient information

seeking skills view themselves along these dimensions.This initial investigation is important because the relationship between these variables has

not been addressed by empirical research to date. Competency theory suggests that

information literacy skills may be associated with students' ability to self-assess their skill

set; students who operate at a low skill level may be at a disadvantage in terms of being able to

recognize their skill deficit (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

Research testing the theory of library anxiety supports the implications of competency

theory because it has documented an association between high-performing students (in terms

of academic achievement and a high level of self-motivation) and the experience of library

anxiety (Jiao, Onwuegbuzie, & Lichtenstein, 1996; Onwuegbuzie & Jiao, 2004). However,these studies do not directly measure student information literacy skills correlated with

experiencing library anxiety (Gross, 2005). This research, therefore, will be useful for testing

and/or verifying both competency and library anxiety theory.

334 M. Gross, D. Latham / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 332353


4/22

The following research questions are addressed in investigating this problem:

1. Based on a test of information seeking skills, what level of information literacy skills dolow-performing and high-performing incoming freshmen (based on high school GPA and

SAT/ACT scores) bring with them to higher education?

2. Is there an association between scores on an information literacy skills test and students'

estimates of their information literacy skills?

3. Do students with non-proficient information literacy skills demonstrate inflated estimates of

their performance on an information literacy skills test?

4. Do students with non-proficient information literacy skills adjust their self-estimates of

performance in response to information literacy skills testing?

5. Is there a relationship between student scores on a test of information literacy and theirscores on a scale that measures library anxiety?

6. Is there a relationship between student scores on a test of information literacy and their

scores on any of the Library Anxiety Scale sub-scores?

3. Relevant literature

Research has shown that students receive inconsistent information literacy skill instruction

in the K-12 environment, that students enter institutions of higher learning with a wide rangeof information literacy skills, and that low-level information literacy skills are common

among entering freshmen and low-performing students (Jiao & Onwuegbuzie, 1998;

Massey-Burzio, 1998; Maughan, 2001; Seiden, Szymborski, & Norelli, 1998; Valentine,

1999). A recent study conducted by the Educational Testing Service reported that only 13%

of 3,000 college students and 800 high school students tested were information literate

(Foster, 2006). Research also shows that many students are not achieving these skills prior to

earning a 4-year degree (Coupe, 1993; Greer, Weston, & Alm, 1991; Maughan, 2001), and

that lesser performing students do not recognize that they lack these skills (Holman, 2000;

Maughan, 2001).

Both anecdotal data from librarians and empirical evidence from research suggest thatstudents demonstrate inflated views of their information literacy skills (Freeman, 2004;

Ivanitskaya, Laus, & Casey, 2004). For example, Geffert and Christensen (1998) found no

correlation between student's test scores and their levels of self-confidence, comfort in

libraries, or self-assessment of library skills (p. 279). Interestingly, this study also provided

evidence that students with higher level skills tend to underestimate their skills, while

students with lower level skills overestimate their performance. These findings are based on

six questions designed to test information literacy and student's self-reports of how

comfortable they felt using various information resources. Geffert and Christensen

recognized that their study was limited by the difficulty inherent in measuring competencyin information literacy skills. They offered no theory to explain their findings.

A long-term study focused on assessing student information literacy skills at the University

of California, Berkeley, assessed the information literacy skills of graduating seniors in 1994,



5/22

1995, and 1999 using a 36-question survey (Maughan, 2001). Self-assessments of information

literacy were compared to skills demonstrated in response to the survey questions. The

researchers concluded that students think they know more about accessing information andconducting library research than they are able to demonstrate when put to the test (p. 71).

Similar to the Geffert and Christensen (1998) study, the Berkeley study was limited by its

assessment tool, which the authors described as focused only on the most fundamental and

easiest-to-measure information competencies (p. 85). They did not advance any theory to

explain these findings.

Holman (2000) designed a study to compare computer-assisted instruction and a

traditional classroom intervention for teaching information literacy skills. She noted that for

some students, neither type of intervention improved skills. Further, despite failing grades on

the post-test, most students reported feeling confident to perform information seeking tasks.In her conclusion Holman called for more research looking at the intersection between

information literacy instruction, self-confidence, and library use.

3.1. Competency theory

Accepted theory in information studies documents that information seeking typically

begins with a sense of uncertainty (Collins, Mellon, & Young, 1987; Kuhlthau, 1993).

However, competency theory would predict that students with a high level of

information literacy skills are more likely to question their ability to perform.Competency theory, developed in the domain of psychology, suggests that people who

lack competence tend not only to be unaware of their lack of ability, but to overestimate

what they can do. They actually display more confidence than skilled individuals

(Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Studies of competence suggest that individuals with low

skill levels overestimate their abilities because their lack of skill hinders their ability to

assess their own performance. Conversely, highly skilled students tend to underestimate

their performance, assuming that they are less skilled than they actually are. However,

individuals with strong skills can use social comparison to regulate this miscalibration,

while individuals who lack these skills cannot. One manifestation of this is the inability

of people with poor skill sets to recognize expertise in others. This may mean thatstudents who lack information literacy skills do not realize it and therefore are unlikely

to seek remediation.

In addition, while the library community has identified the skill set a student needs to be

considered information literate (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000), the

common approach to skill provision is didactic and informed by professional models, not

the perceptions and habits of low-skilled students. There are calls in the library literature to

acknowledge the searching strategies students use as a way of moving them towards more

sophisticated skills (Seamans, 2002).

Competency theory suggests that low-skilled students are unlikely to self-identify in eithera classroom or library context. They lack the meta-cognitive skills needed to recognize the

relevance of the teacher's or library's outreach efforts to their personal context. Freeman's

(2004) study of the relationship between student views of their library skills and their



6/22

opinions of library instruction found that a positive self assessment of one's library skills

generally will have a negative effect on one's opinion of library instruction (p. 45).

Understanding the extent to which competency theory applies in this domain is crucial to thedesign of resources, services, systems, and other interventions that speak to the needs of

these students in ways that they can hear.

3.2. The theory of library anxiety

Studies of competence predict that students with low-level information literacy skills

will proceed confidently, unaware that they do not possess the level of skills they think

they do. Interestingly, the effect of confidence in completing research assignments has not

been widely reported in the literature of library and information studies. Rather,researchers have found that individuals cope with strong feelings of uncertainty, especially

during the initiation of a project. This finding led to the development of library anxiety

theory. The experience of library anxiety has been an active area of research in the field

since the 1980s (Collins et al., 1987; Jiao & Onwuegbuzie, 1998; Kuhlthau, 1993;

Mellon, 1986). Library anxiety theory describes students as so uncomfortable in the

academic library that this discomfort impairs their ability to engage in information seeking

tasks. Students who suffer library anxiety tend to think that they lack skills that others

have. Rather than seeking help, they try to hide their lack of skill from instructors and

peers.Bostick identified five barriers to library use that further clarify the nature of library

anxiety. These barriers include fear of library staff, an affective sense of incompetence,

feeling uncomfortable in the library, lack of knowledge about the library, and discomfort

using library equipment (copiers, computers, etc.) (Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, & Bostick, 2004).

Studies of library anxiety have looked at variables that may be associated with skill

level, such as the number of library classes a student has attended and how frequently

he uses the library (Jiao & Onwuegbuzie, 1997, 1998; Onwuegbuzie & Jiao, 2004).

None of these studies has directly measured information literacy skill, and so it is not

possible to comment on the relationship between skill levels and the experience of

uncertainty in information seeking or the library anxiety response. Are people whoexperience library anxiety more likely to have a high level of information literacy? A

second strength of the study reported here is that it tests library anxiety theory as well

as competence theory in seeking a deeper understanding of the information literacy skills

of students.

4. Procedures

This study uses objective tests to measure the information literacy skills of incomingfreshmen and the extent to which they experience library anxiety. In addition, the study used

two short surveys to collect demographic information, self-assessments of skills, and

information about exposure to information literacy skills instruction.



7/22

4.1. Data collection instruments

Information literacy skills were measured using the Information Literacy Test (ILT)developed atJMU (n.d.). Both the SAILS test developed at Kent State University and the ICT

developed by ETS were considered for use in this project. However, at the time of data

collection, neither of these tests offered scores at the individual level; the SAILS test still does

not (Project SAILS, 2007). Moreover, the ICT test provides a combined measure of

information and communication technology skills. Therefore, it is not strictly a measure of

information literacy as defined in the field of library and information science. The ICT, for

example, involves such activities as downloading a videoplayer, creating a graph, developing

presentation slides, and preparing a text message for a cell phone (ICT Literacy Assessment,

2007).All three tests have been validated and tested for reliability (Cameron, Wise, & Lottridge,

2007). Although developed for in-house use, the ILT is not specific to resources or instruction

at James Madison University. In fact, the test has been adopted for use at other schools,

including the Virginia Community College System, Northwest Missouri State University, Kent

State University, Christopher Newport University, Manchester Metropolitan University

(United Kingdom), and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (S.L. Wise,

personal communication, March 29, 2007). The ILT presents subjects with 65 multiple choice

items designed around four of the five ACRL information literacy standards, which

1. determines the nature and extent of the information needed;

2. accesses needed information effectively and efficiently;

3. evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into

his or her knowledge base system; and

4. understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of infor-

mation and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. (JMU, n.d., paragraph 2)

The ACRL standard uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose is not

addressed by this test (JMU, n.d., paragraph 2). Table 1 provides interpretation of ILT scores.

This table is used to categorize participant scores as non-proficient (b39), proficient (3953),or advanced (54 or higher). Scores are based on 60 questions out of the 65 presented, as 5

questions are routinely added to the ILT for test development purposes.

Library anxiety was measured using the Library Anxiety Scale (LAS) developed by Bostick

(1993) to provide a quantitative test ofMellon's (1986) theory of library anxiety. The Library

Anxiety Scale asks respondents to rate 43 statements using a Likert-type scale with ratings

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition to producing a total score, the

Library Anxiety Scale can also be scored to produce five subscales, identified as Barriers with

Staff, Affective Barriers, Comfort with the Library, Knowledge of the Library, and Mechanical

Barriers. The Library Anxiety Scale and scoring protocols are available in Library Anxiety:Theory, Research, and Applications (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004).

The two surveys the authors developed and used to collect demographic data and data on

students' self-assessments are provided in Appendices A and B.



8/22

For testing purposes, the researchers developed two Blackboard sites that contained a videogreeting and instructions from the researchers, a link to the ILT test, the pre- and post-ILT

surveys, and the LAS. One site presented the ILT test before the LAS; the other presented the

LAS before the ILT. Half the subjects were randomly assigned to one site and half to the other.

Participants made appointments to show up at the testing center. Data were collected over the

course of 2 weeks in a proctored environment. The average time to complete all the tests was

53.9 minutes.

4.2. Participants

Study participants were specific subjects representing the top and the bottom 25% of theincoming class (based on high school GPA and SAT/ACT scores) at Florida State University who

were participating in summer session. They were contacted via email and asked to participate in

this study. Participants were chosen from the top and bottom 25% of their class because theory

and research suggests that these students are the most likely to demonstrate miscalibrations

between skill level and self-estimates of performance (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

A minimum of 60 students were sought, and 58 responded. Of these, 7 were under the age

of 18 and could not be included in the study. While equal numbers of high- and low-

performing students were sought, fewer low-performing students opted to participate in this

study. No data are available to explain why this was so. Are low-performing students morereluctant than high-performing students to place themselves in a testing situation? Were these

low-performing students avoiding distractions as they started their college careers? Are

different incentives needed to attract this population? These questions may relate directly to the

Table 1

Performance level definitions and performance standards recommended for proficient and advanced levels on the

60-item ILT (Wise, Cameron, Yang, & Davis, n.d., p. 12)

Proficiency

level

Performance

standard

Descriptors

Proficient 39 (65%) The student who is proficient is able to

Describe how libraries are organized

Define major library services

Choose the appropriate type of reference source for a particular information need

Identify common types of citations

Employ basic database search strategies

Locate a variety of sources in a library or online

Discriminate between scholarly and popular publicationsLegally and ethically use information

Advanced 54 (90%) The student who is advanced is able to attain the criteria for proficient and

Modify and improve database search strategies to retrieve better results

Employ sophisticated database search strategies

Interpret information in a variety of sources

Evaluate information in terms of purpose, authority, and reliability

Understand ethical, legal, and socioeconomic issues relating to information

access and use



9/22

question of how to best design and market interventions that will build information literacy

skills for those with low levels of proficiency.

5. Findings

All data were coded and analyzed using SPSS. For all tests alpha was set at p =0.05.

Findings for each research question are presented below.

5.1. Demographic data

Participants were incoming freshmen who represented either the top 25% or bottom 25% oftheir class based on high school GPA and ACT (or adjusted SAT) scores. There were 51

participants in the study, of whom 33 were in the top quartile and 18 were in the bottom

quartile. Table 2 summarizes the demographic data for the study participants.

5.2. Information literacy skill levels

An important consideration in measuring information literacy is how motivated participants

will be to take the test seriously, given that the outcome of the testing has no bearing on their

lives. Several strategies were included in the research design to minimize and then assess thepossibility that low scores on the ILT might be due to a lack of effort rather than a lack of skill.

For example, while all subjects were given the incentive of a gift certificate for the university

Table 2

Demographic data

Top quartile Bottom quartile Total

Age and gender freq.

18 yearsFemale 24 (72.7%) 13 (72.2%) 37 (72.5%)

Male 9 (27.5%) 3 (16.7%) 12 (23.5%)

19 years

Female 0 0 0

Male 0 2 (11.1%) 2 (3.9%)

Race/ethnicity freq.

White 27 (81.8%) 10 (55.6%) 37 (72.5%)

Hispanic 4 (12.1%) 2 (11.1%) 6 (11.8%)

Black 1 (3%) 4 (22.2%) 5 (9.8%)

Asian 1 (3%) 0 1 (2%)

Multi-race/ethnicity 0 1 (5.6%) 1 (2%) No response 0 1 (5.6%) 1 (2%)

Mean high school GPA 3.97 3.04 3.639

Mean ACT/adjusted SAT 26.94 21.39 24.98



10/22

bookstore, they were also advised that those who scored in the top 15% of all participants

would be included in a drawing for an additional 4 gift certificates.

Another strategy used to ensure motivation was to ask all participants to view a short videobefore beginning the testing. The video introduced the researchers, explained the importance

of the study, and encouraged participants to do their best. Lastly, a response time effort analysis

was performed on this data set at the Center for Assessment and Research at JMU. The data are

consistent with times that suggest all participants were engaged with the test. 1

Scores on the ILT provide the basis for a response to the question, What level of

information literacy skills do low-performing and high-performing incoming freshmen, based

on GPA and SAT/ACT scores, bring with them to higher education? The scoring rubric used

for analysis is taken from the ILT manual. It suggests that a score of less than 39 indicates non-

proficient skills, scores between 39 and 53 represent proficient skills, and a score of 54 orhigher indicates advanced skills.

The mean score on the ILT for all participants was 39.25 ( SD =6.81). The mean score for

bottom-tier freshmen was 33.94 (SD =6.12). The mean score for top-tier freshmen was 42.15

(SD = 5.30). A t-test comparing these two groups, without the assumption of equal variances in

a two-tailed test, resulted in t(30.98)=4.793, pb0.000. This indicated a significant difference

in the information literacy skills obtained by these two groups. However, it must be noted that

four (22.2%) of the bottom-tier freshmen tested at the proficient level and nine (27.3%) of the

top-tier freshmen had non-proficient scores. Only one student in the entire sample (a top-

quartile participant) demonstrated attainment of advanced information literacy skills.In the short survey respondents took before taking the ILT, they were asked, How have you

learned what you know about using the library or how to find information? They were

presented with a list of fixed responses from which they could choose as many as fit their

background. The next question on the survey, Please describe any other ways that you have

learned to use the library or to find information, allowed respondents to identify other infor-

mation literacy learning experiences they had had that were not covered by the fixed responses.

Because participants could choose as many answers as applied to their background, the total

number of responses (152) exceeded the number of participants in the study (n =51). Among

respondents, 74.5% (38) responded that they taught myself, 45.1% (23) received library

instruction in the school library media center, 39.2% (20) were helped by a librarian in a publiclibrary, and 41.2% (21) reported being helped by a classmate or friend. Fewer respondents said

they were helped by a parent (15 people or 29.4%), received library instruction in the

classroom (13 or 25.5%), or received instruction in a college or university library (12 or

23.5%). Ten students (19.6%) said that they received instruction as part of their freshman

orientation on campus.

However, top-quartile students differed from bottom-quartile students in that they reported a

higher incidence of receiving instruction in information literacy in the school library media

center, classroom, and/or public library. Data on the sources students identified as contributing

to their skills are displayed in Table 3.

1 For a discussion of response time effort analysis, see Wise and Kong (2005).



11/22

In answer to the question about other ways participants have learned to use the library or to

find information, representative responses include instruction as part of campus special

programs, from classroom teachers, experience working in a library, and help from a stranger

in a library.

5.3. Information skill levels and self-estimates of performance

In order to determine if self-estimates of performance in the domain of information literacy

follow the same pattern demonstrated in the literature, participants were asked to estimate their

performance on the ILT before and after taking the test. Both pre- and post-tests were used to

determine if exposure to the ILT would assist students in making better self-assessments.

Participants estimated their performance in terms of the expected percent of questions they

would be able to answer correctly, the number of questions they would answer correctly, and

how their performance on the ILT would compare to the scores of other incoming freshmen

taking the test (in percentages).

This was used to respond to the question, Is there a relationship between a standardized

measurement of information literacy skills and students' estimates of their information literacyskills?

5.3.1. Pre-ILT estimates

The mean estimate of performance by percentage is 75.25 (SD = 11.30). This is significantly

higher than the actual mean percentage of 65.42, one-sample t(50)=6.215,pb0.000. The mean

score of all participants on the ILT is 39.25 (SD = 6.81). The mean estimate of the number of

questions students expected to answer correctly on the ILT is 49.71 ( SD =6.86). This is a

significant difference, one-sample t(50)=10.876, pb0.000. The mean estimate comparing

estimates of performance to other incoming freshmen by percentile is 76.86 (SD =13.98). Thisestimate is also significantly higher than the real mean of 52.9, one-sample t(50)=12.238,

pb0.000. All measures indicate that expected performance is miscalibrated with actual

performance.

Table 3

Sources of information literacy knowledge by quartile

Source Freq. bottom quar.

(percentage of quartile)

Freq. top quar.

(percentage of quartile)

Total frequency

(percentage of total)

School library media center 6 (33.3%) 17 (51.5%) 23 (45.1%)

Classroom 3 (16.7%) 10 (30.3%) 13 (25.5%)

Parent 6 (33.3%) 9 (27.3%) 15 (29.4%)

Public library 5 (27.8%) 15 (45.5%) 20 (39.2%)

College/university library 4 (22.2%) 8 (24.2%) 12 (23.5%)

Classmate/friend 11 (61.1%) 10 (30.3%) 21 (41.2%)

Myself 14 (77.8%) 24 (72.7%) 38 (74.5%)

Orientation 4 (22.2%) 6 (18.2%) 10 (19.6%)

Other 14 (77.8%) 11 (33.3%) 25 (49.0%)



12/22

Pearson's correlation was used (n =51, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05) to analyze ILT scores

and self-estimates of performance by percentage, by estimated number of correct answers, and

by expectations of performance compared to expectations of the performance of others. In allcases these variables were positively correlated, but not to a significant degree. Correlations

ranged from 0.177 to 0.248.

5.3.2. Post-ILT estimates

The mean estimate of performance by percentage after taking the ILT is 68.82

(SD = 10.64). This estimate is significantly higher that the actual mean of 65.42% on

sample t(50)=2.285, pb0.027. The mean score of all participants on the ILT is 39.25

(SD = 6.81). The mean estimate of the number of questions expected to be answered

correctly on the ILT after taking the test is 43.88 (SD =7.65).2

The difference betweenthese two variables is also significant, one-sample t(50)=4.325, pb0.000. The mean

estimate comparing performance to other incoming freshmen by percentile is 70.20

(SD =16.01, n =49).3 This is also a significant difference from the actual mean, one-sample

t(49)=7.639, pb0.000. All measures demonstrate a downward correction in estimates of

performance. Nonetheless, all estimates indicate that a miscalibration between performance

and estimates of performance persist even after having the experience of taking a skills

test.

Researchers used Pearson's correlation (n = 51, two-tailed test, alpha= 0.05) and

performed a bivariate analysis of ILT scores and self-estimates of performance for allthree variables. Post-test estimates by percentile were positively correlated with ILT score,

but not at a significant level. Post-test estimates of number of correct test items (r=0.298,

pb0.034) and comparison of performance with peers (r=0.402, pb0.004) were both

positively correlated with actual test scores at a significant level.

5.3.3. Low-level information skills and estimates of performance

Competency theory and previous research suggest that miscalibrations between self-

estimates of performance and actual performance are greatest among low-skilled individuals.

The question, Do students with low-level information literacy skills demonstrate inflated

estimates of their performance on an information literacy skills test? required isolating andanalyzing data from low-skill students. In this sample, 23 (45.1%) of participants received

scores of less than 39, which is the threshold score for proficiency on the ILT. Among the

remaining participants, 27 (52.9%) scored in the proficient range, and only one (2%)

participant received a score in the advanced range (greater than 54). Figs. 1 and 2

graphically demonstrate that the miscalibrations for the non-proficient subjects are in fact

greater than those demonstrated by other subjects. Proficient students did a better job of

2 One participant chose to answer the question of how many correct answers he/she had on the test with a range

of scores rather than a single score. The range provided was 49 60. His response was coded as 49 because this

reflected the participant's most conservative estimate of performance.3 There was one missing response to this question.



13/22

estimating their performance, and the one advanced student underestimated his or her skill

level.Tables 46 display mean scores for actual and estimated performance both pre- and post-

testing.

Fig. 2. Actual percentiles and estimated percentiles by skill level.

Fig. 1. Actual scores and estimated scores by skill level.



14/22

5.3.4. Low-level information skills and estimates of performance before the ILT

Among non-proficient students, the mean score on the ILT is 33.48 or 55.8% (SD =4.63).

The mean estimate of performance by percentage before taking the ILT is 72.30 ( SD =12.24).The mean estimate of the number of questions expected to be answered correctly on the ILT

before taking the test is 48 (SD = 7.1). The mean estimate comparing estimates of performance

to other incoming freshmen by percentile before taking the test is 71.09 (SD =17.38). All

measures demonstrate a miscalibration between estimated and actual performance. One-

sample t-tests for estimated score, percentage, and peer comparison for pre-test estimates

were respectively t(22)=9.812, 22.176, and 15.281, pb0.000.

5.3.5. Low-level information skills and estimates of performance after the ILT

Do students with low-level information literacy skills adjust self-estimates of performancein response to taking the ILT? All three post-test measures demonstrate a downward

correction in estimates of performance. Nonetheless, all estimates demonstrate that a

significant miscalibration between actual performance and estimates of performance persists

even after having taken a skills test.

Among non-proficient students, the mean score on the ILT is 33.48 (SD =4.63) and the

mean estimate of the number of questions expected to be answered correctly on the ILT after

taking the test is 41.74 (SD = 7.61). The mean estimate comparing performance to other

incoming freshmen by percentile after taking the test was 73 (SD =11.853, n =21). These

estimates of performance are highly inflated, indicating that non-proficient participants not

only overestimate their own level of skill attainment, but also believe that they are performingat an above-average level. Non-proficient students, on average, scored at the 15.7 percentile.

The mean estimate of performance by percentile after taking the ILT was 66 (SD =10.78).

Table 5

ILT mean percentile rank and performance estimates by percentage

ILT rating n Percentile

mean rank

Mean percentage

score

Pre-test

estimate mean

Post-test

estimate mean

Non-proficient 23 15.7 55.8 72.30 66Proficient 27 70.6 72.65 77.22 71.19

Advanced 1 100 91.66 90 70

All participants 51 50 65.42 75.25 68.82

Table 4

ILT Mean scores and performance estimates

ILT rating n Mean score Pre-test estimate mean Post-test estimate mean

Non-proficientb39 23 33.48 48 41.74

Proficient 3953 27 43.59 50.85 45.48

Advanced N53 1 55 58 50

All participants 51 39.25 49.71 43.88



15/22

One-sample t-tests for estimated score, percentage, and peer comparison for post-test

estimates were respectively t(22)=5.208, 22.38, and 11.997, pb0.000.

6. Discussion

6.1. Student information skills

As noted above, there is much evidence that many students are information illiterate when

they enter institutions of higher education. The findings of this study support this idea because

45% (23) of the students in this sample tested as non-proficient in their information literacy

skills. While a significant difference in ILT scores between bottom and top quartiles ofincoming freshmen was demonstrated, it is important to note that there were bottom-tier

students who were information proficient as well as top-tier students who were non-proficient

based on their scores on the ILT. Further, only 1 student out of 51 tested at the advanced level.

Students, regardless of tier, reported similar backgrounds in terms of how they developed

their information literacy skills. While they demonstrated a variety of inputs, the most common

answer was taught myself. Help from a classmate or friend was as prevalent as instruction in

the school library media center or public library. Only about a quarter of students reported

receiving instruction in a classroom setting or at an academic library. Top-tier students were

more likely to report experiencing formal instruction in information literacy skills in the library

or classroom.These findings reflect what the literature has shown: information literacy instruction at the

K-12 level is provided inconsistently. The majority of these students perceived themselves to

be self-taught in terms of their information literacy skills. While such self-reliance is laudable,

it may contribute to allowing students to develop a faulty sense of skill attainment, because

skill development is not evaluated against an accepted criteria of competence (such as the

ACRL standards). Further, much research on the ability of individuals to self-assess their

instructional needs demonstrates that such self-assessments are faulty (Davis et al., 2006;

Gravil, Compeau, & Marcolin, 2005).

A number of bottom-tier and non-proficient students indicate that they picked up skills fromfriends and classmates. This is also in line with the literature on information seeking, which has

demonstrated that people go to another person for information first and that young people

enjoy sharing the skills they have attained. However, given what is known about the state of

Table 6

ILT mean percentile rank and performance estimates compared to peers

ILT rating n Percentile mean rank Pre-test estimate mean rank Post-test estimate mean rank

Non-proficient 23 15.7 71.09 61.82

Proficient 27 70.6 81.48 76.8

Advanced 1 100 85 75

All participants 51 52.9 76.86 70.20



16/22

information literacy skills and the findings of this study, how information literate are friends

and classmates likely to be? Further, one of the characteristics of low-skilled individuals

described by Kruger and Dunning (1999) is that they are unable to assess the skill levels ofothers. These findings call for increased attention to formal interventions that will ensure that

students at all levels obtain information literacy skills in the educational environment.

6.2. Self-estimates of performance

This analysis demonstrates that the pattern of association in which subjects who

demonstrate low-level skills hold inflated views of their abilities, as described by Kruger

and Dunning (1999), applies to information literacy. Despite the small sample size, the high

level of significance (pb0.000) for all self-estimates reinforces this finding.While it was hoped that selecting subjects from the top and bottom tiers based on GPA and

SAT/ACT scores would present subjects at the bottom and top of the information literacy skills

continuum, only 1 student out of 51 tested at the advanced level. This subject did demonstrate

the pattern of self-estimates reported in previous literature: the extremely competent tend to

underestimate their performance. However, this limited subject pool makes further analysis

related to expertise in the domain of information literacy impossible here. Further research

concerning both those in the non-proficient category and the advanced category is needed.

Subjects performing at a proficient level also follow the pattern of behavior predicted by

Kruger and Dunning (1999): They give more realistic estimates of performance and a moreaccurate self-ranking compared to peers.

Kruger and Dunning's (1999) assertion that the link between inflated self-assessments and

poor performance is a lack of metacognitive skills (not being able to tell the difference between

a right and wrong answer) presents an interesting conundrum for those interested in

developing effective information literacy instruction. Like Kruger and Dunning, professional

wisdom in librarianship would suggest that the cure for incompetence is skill building.

However, studies such as those performed by Holman (2000), Maughan (2001), and others

have found that instruction is not always successful with low-skill individuals. This may be a

signal that individuals who are not information literate may need a new, different type of

intervention in order to recognize and overcome their skill deficit. Further investigation isneeded to determine if this is so and how best to respond to the needs of this subset of the

population.

6.3. Information literacy and library anxiety

The purpose of this analysis is to verify competency theory and research testing the theory

of library anxiety. Research into library anxiety supports the implications of competency

theory-it has documented an association between high-performing students (in terms of

academic achievement and a high level of self-motivation) and the experience of libraryanxiety (Jiao et al., 1996; Onwuegbuzie & Jiao, 2004). In contrast, Kuhlthau's (1993)

Information Search Process (ISP) model of information seeking suggests that a sense of

uncertainty is a normal affective state at the start of the research process.



17/22

One important concern in the data collection design was that the order in which

subjects were presented with a test of information literacy and a test of library anxiety

during the same session might artificially affect scores. Would students who had just taken atest of information literacy be more in touch with fears they have around library use?

Likewise, would the anticipation of taking an Information Literacy Test inflate library anxiety

scores?

Counterbalancing was used to anticipate this potential problem. Half of the subjects took the

ILT and then the LAS; the other half took the LAS and then the ILT. Participants were

randomly assigned to comparison groups, stratified by their identification as top- or bottom-

tier students. For the purposes of this analysis, one case was removed from the data set as an

outlier.

To respond to the question, Is there a relationship between student scores on a standardizedtest of information literacy and their scores on a scale that measures library anxiety?,

Pearson's correlation was used (n =50, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A bivariate analysis of

ILT scores and student total scores on the LAS was performed. The results of this correlation

are non-significant (r=0.18, p = 0.21), indicating only a slight negative relationship between

information literacy scores and scores on the LAS.

A second analysis was performed to respond to the research question, Is there an

association between student scores on a standardized test of information literacy and their

scores on any of the library anxiety subscale scores? This data analysis focused on ILT scores

and the five subscale scores derived from the LAS. The scale measures five barriers thatcontribute to the experience of library anxiety: staff, affective, comfort with the library,

knowledge of the library, and mechanical barriers.

Table 7 shows that the only subscale that demonstrates a relationship with information

literacy skills is knowledge of the library (r=0.37, p =0.01). This relationship is negative,

indicating that as information literacy scores rise, anxiety scores related to a lack of knowledge

of the library fall.

Competency theory and findings from studies of library anxiety suggest that library anxiety

might be more of a problem among high-performing students than among low-performing

students because high-performing students are more likely to second-guess their skills. The

findings from this study do not support this hypothesis. No correlation was found betweenperformance on the ILT and the experience of library anxiety as measured by the LAS. The

Table 7

Scale and subscale scores (n =50)

Scale/subscale M SD r p

ILT 39.32 6.86

LAS total score 96.78 16.89 0.18 0.21

Barriers with staff 31.48 6.34 0.17 0.24

Affective barriers 30.46 7.58

0.04 0.79Comfort with the library 17.78 3.95 0.26 0.07

Knowledge of the library 9.28 2.26 0.37 0.01

Mechanical barriers 7.78 1.69 0.11 0.45



18/22

lack of association between performance on the ILT and the affective subscale reinforces this

finding; this subscale is designed to measure subjects' sense of incompetence. However, there

was only one score at the advanced level on the ILT. A replication performed with a morebalanced sample across the range of scores on the ILT and the LAS would more fully address

this question.

The relationship between information literacy and knowledge of the library, the only

subscale that demonstrated a correlation, also does not support the idea that knowing less

results in an enhanced sense of confidence. This association was very strong, given the small

sample size and restricted scores. This may indicate that efforts to build information literacy,

as long suggested in the literature, may be effective at stemming library anxiety.

However, knowledge of the library is only one of five barriers measured by the LAS. Level

of information literacy may not prevent people from experiencing other barriers, such as perceiving that librarians are not helpful or feeling discomfort using library equipment.

Therefore, issues related to barriers not related to knowledge of the library may require their

own set of interventions.

7. Limitations

There are several limitations that must be kept in mind in interpreting and applying the

findings from this study. First, while proactive steps were taken to ensure that subjects would be motivated to take their participation seriously, the data collected nonetheless relies on

honesty, openness, and motivation of respondents. Further, while recruitment was designed to

pull in students who seemed likely to represent both low-level and high-level information

literacy skills, only one student demonstrated advanced-level information literacy skills. This

fact limits the discussion and analysis of high-skill individuals' performance.

Another limitation is sample size. As a first attempt at theory verification, this study offers

some useful insights. However, it is not possible to generalize these findings beyond this

sample. The small sample size also limits the analysis of library anxiety in that a full range of

scores on the LAS and the ILT were not demonstrated. It must also be noted that norms have

not been developed for the LAS (A. Onwuegbuzie, personal communication, July 27, 2006).As LAS scores rise, so does library anxiety. However, because scores have not been

categorized, it is not possible to associate a given score with a defined anxiety level, such as

low, medium, or high anxiety. This means it is only possible to talk about the library anxiety of

subjects in a relative sense. It is not possible to identify subjects who experience so much

library anxiety that it actually begins to inhibit their performance.

8. Conclusion

Overall, this research promises to have wide impact in both the theoretical and practical

realms. The information gained informs theory, adds to the general base of knowledge

concerning student information literacy skills, and presents a new way of thinking about how



19/22

to improve student learning in both traditional and distance learning environments. Findings

from this work may also be transferable to understanding the development of information

literacy skills in other user populations, such as children and seniors. The findings may beapplied to encourage higher academic achievement by students, create a more informed

citizenry, and increase the number of college graduates who are prepared to enter graduate

programs, compete in the marketplace, and become lifelong learners.

This study, in conjunction with several others being undertaken currently, may form the

basis for a more allencompassing investigation with a special emphasis on how to best

design, market, and deliver information literacy education for students operating with non-

proficient information skills. More research is needed on the types and efficacy of

instructional strategies currently used to teach information literacy skills in the K-12

environment and higher education. More research is also needed to develop innovativestrategies for providing new kinds of information literacy education. For example, in light of

the findings of this study, students with low-level skills may benefit from working

collaboratively to create knowledge. It is also hoped that this study will help to open the

dialog between librarians, instructors, and users to make the goal of attaining information

literacy better understood for all.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Florida State UniversityOffice of Research; the College of Information; and Bonnie Armstrong, Karin Smalkoski and

the staff of the FSU Assessment Center for their generous support of this work. Thanks also to

Stephen Wise at James Madison University for his interest in this project.

Appendix A. Pre-ILT Survey Questions

1. What is your age?2. What is your gender (male or female)?

3. Please choose the race category below that best describes you.1. White

2. Black

3. Asian

4. American Indian

5. Hispanic

6. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific

7. Multi-race/Ethnic

4. How have you learned what you know about using the library or how to find information?

(You may choose more than one answer.)1. library instruction in the school library media center

2. library instruction in the classroom

3. helped by a parent



20/22

4. helped by librarian in a public library (includes library tour or group instruction)

5. helped by a librarian in a college or university library (includes library tour or group

instruction)6. helped by a classmate or friend

7. taught myself

8. library instruction provided during FSU orientation

5. Please describe any other ways that you have learned to use the library or to find information.

6. Please estimate how well you think you will perform on the Information Literacy Test in

terms of the percentage of questions you expect to be able to answer correctly (for example,

100% would be a perfect score; 75% means that you would get 75% of the questions right;

etc.). Enter your estimate in the box below.

7. The Information Literacy Test asks you to respond to 65 questions. Please estimate howmany of these questions you think you will be able to answer correctly. (For example, do

you expect to get a score of 34 out of 65? 54 out of 65? A perfect score of 65 out of 65?)

Please enter your estimated score in the box below.

8. Using percentages again, please estimate how you think your performance on the

Information Literacy Test will compare to other incoming freshmen taking this test. (For

example, an estimate of 80% means that you think 20% of the students will score higher

than you.) Enter your estimate in the box below.

Appendix B. Post-ILT Survey Questions

1. Now that you have taken the Information Literacy Test, please estimate how well you think

you performed in terms of the percentage of questions you answered correctly (for example,

100% would be a perfect score; 75% means that you got 75% of the questions right, etc.).

Enter your estimate in the box below.

2. You responded to 65 questions on the Information Literacy Test. Please estimate how many

of these questions you think you were able to answer correctly. (For example, do you think

you received a score of 34 out of 65? 54 out of 65? A perfect score of 65 out of 65?) Please

enter your estimated score in the box below.3. Now that you have taken the Information Literacy Test, please estimate, using percent-

ages, how you think your performance on the Information Literacy Test will compare to

that of other incoming freshmen taking this test. (For example, an estimate of 80% means

that you think 20% of the students will score higher than you.) Enter your estimate in the

box below.

References

American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology

(1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association.

Association of College and Research Libraries (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher

education. Chicago: Author.



21/22

Bostick, S. L. (1993). The development and validation of the Library Anxiety Scale. In M. E. Murfin, & J. B.

Whitlatch (Eds.), Research in reference effectiveness (pp. 17). Chicago: American Library Association.

Cameron, L., Wise, S. L., & Lottridge, S. M. (2007). The development and validation of the Information LiteracyTest. College and Research Libraries, 68, 229236.

Collins, B. L., Mellon, C. A., & Young, S. B. (1987). The needs and feelings of beginning researchers. In C. A.

Mellon (Ed.),Bibliographic instruction: The second generation (pp. 7384). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Coupe, J. (1993). Undergraduate library skills: Two surveys at Johns Hopkins University. Research Strategies, 11,

189201.

Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Harrison, R. V., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006). Accuracy of

physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. Journal of

the American Medical Association, 296, 10941102.

Dugan, R. E. (2004). A local institutional assessment plan. In P. Hernon, & R. E. Dugan (Eds.), Outcomes

assessment in higher education: Views and perspectives (pp. 103134). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Foster, A. L. (2006, October 27). Students fall short on information literacy, Educational Testing Service's studyfinds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/

i10/10a03602.htm

Freeman, C. A. (2004). The relationship of undergraduate student's self-assessment of library skills to their opinion

of library instruction: A self-reporting study. The Southeastern Librarian, 52, 3946.

Geffert, B., & Christensen, B. E. (1998). Things they carry: Attitudes toward, opinions about, and knowledge of

libraries and research among incoming college students. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 37, 279289.

Gravil, J. I., Compeau, D. R., & Marcolin, B. L. (2005). Experience effects on the accuracy of self-assessed user

competence. Information & Management, 43, 378394.

Greer, A., Weston, L., & Alm, M. (1991). Assessment of learning outcomes: A measure of progress in library

literacy. College & Research Libraries, 52, 549557.

Gross, M. (2005). The impact of low-level skills on information seeking behavior: Implications of competencytheory for research and practice. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 45, 5462.

Hernon, P., & Dugan, R. E. (2004). Preface. In P. Hernon, & R. E. Dugan (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in higher

education: Views and perspectives (pp. xvxvii). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Hernon, P. (2004). Selecting from the assessment tool chest. In P. Hernon, & R. E. Dugan (Eds.), Outcomes

assessment in higher education: Views and perspectives (pp. 149173). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Holman, L. (2000). A comparison of computer assisted instruction and classroom bibliographic instruction.

Reference & User Services Quarterly, 40, 5360.

ICT Literacy Assessment. (2007). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.

435c0b5cc7bd0ae7015d9510c3921509/?vgnextoid=b8a246f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

Ivanitskaya, L., Laus, R., & Casey, A. M. (2004). Research readiness self-assessment: Assessing student's research

skills and attitudes. Journal of Library Administration, 41, 167

183.James Madison University. (n.d.). The Information Literacy Test. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.

jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/ILT.pdf

Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997). Antecedents of library anxiety. The Library Quarterly, 67, 372389.

Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1998). Perfectionism and library anxiety among graduate students. Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 24, 365371.

Jiao, Q. G., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Lichtenstein, A. A. (1996). Library anxiety: Characteristics of at risk college

students. Library & Information Science Research, 18, 151163.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's

own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,

11211134.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Massey-Burzio, V. (1998). From the other side of the reference desk: A focus group study. Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 24, 208215.

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10a03602.htmhttp://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10a03602.htmhttp://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.435c0b5cc7bd0ae7015d9510c3921509/?vgnextoid=b8a246f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRDhttp://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.435c0b5cc7bd0ae7015d9510c3921509/?vgnextoid=b8a246f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRDhttp://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/ILT.pdfhttp://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/ILT.pdfhttp://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/ILT.pdfhttp://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/ILT.pdfhttp://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.435c0b5cc7bd0ae7015d9510c3921509/?vgnextoid=b8a246f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRDhttp://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.435c0b5cc7bd0ae7015d9510c3921509/?vgnextoid=b8a246f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRDhttp://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10a03602.htmhttp://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10a03602.htm


22/22

Maughan, P. D. (2001). Assessing information literacy among undergraduates: A discussion of the literature and the

University of California-Berkeley assessment experience. College & Research Libraries, 62, 7185.

Mellon, C. A. (1986). Library anxiety: A grounded theory and its development. College & Research Libraries, 47,160165.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2004). Information search performance and research achievement: An empirical

test of the anxietyexpectation mediation model of library anxiety. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science & Technology, 55, 4154.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research, and applications.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Project SAILS: Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy. (2007). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from https://

www.projectsails.org/

Ratteray, O. M. T. (2004). The strategic triad supporting information literacy assessment. In P. Hernon, & R. E.

Dugan (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in higher education: Views and perspectives (pp. 135148). Westport, CT:

Libraries Unlimited.Seamans, N. H. (2002). Student perception of information literacy: Insights for librarians. Reference Services

Review, 30, 112123.

Seiden, P., Szymborski, K., & Norelli, B. (1998, April 1114). Undergraduate students in the digital library:

Information seeking behavior in an heterogeneous environment. Paper presented at Choosing our futures:

Eighth national conference, Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from

http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference8.htm

Valentine, B., (1999, April 811). Students versus the research paper: What can we learn? Paper presented at

ACRL Ninth National Conference. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/

nationalconference/conference9.htm

Wise, S. L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based

tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(2), 163

183.Wise, S. L., Cameron, L., Yang, S., & Davis, S. (n.d.). Information Literacy Test: Test development and admin-

istration manual. Harrisonburg, VA: Institute for Computer-Based Assessment, James Madison University.

http://https//www.projectsails.org/http://https//www.projectsails.org/http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference8.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference9.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference9.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference9.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference9.htmhttp://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/nationalconference/conference8.htmhttp://https//www.projectsails.org/http://https//www.projectsails.org/

Info Lit and Library Anxiety

Documents

Transcript of Info Lit and Library Anxiety